Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.
I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”
Here is a novel idea. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!
But then how would they get rich influencing? Their entire business model depends on people not minding their business.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would like to see all monetizing of children online or on TV reality shows to be covered by the same regulations as child actors and professional agency sponsored child models, including require Coogan Accounts for any funds generated by minor content
+1
I read that there are photos of the boy who drowned. If I were his mother I would absolutely sue to have the release of the photos blocked.
Anonymous wrote:I would like to see all monetizing of children online or on TV reality shows to be covered by the same regulations as child actors and professional agency sponsored child models, including require Coogan Accounts for any funds generated by minor content
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Apparently, before the child drowned, there were lots of comments on her posts telling her to fence her pool and she DELETED them. So the idea that she can just delete “bad” content like the 911 call or body cam footage is par for the course.
She also has videos showing that her young child knew how to open the door leading to the pool, by himself.
I have nothing against this influencer and I am sad for her. But in general, the public’s inappropriate and unhealthy interest in this child’s death is a direct result of the “content” she put out there. Influencers are harmful to society IMHO.
And most of all, influencers are harmful to themselves. She will no doubt film some long series talking about what happened, her grief, etc. And it will be monetized and those videos will make a bunch of money. Will she set up a foundation in honor of her child? Will she become a crusader of water safety? Or will she simply buy a bigger house and a nicer car? My money is on the latter.
I agree once the dust settles she will monetize it for sure.
Anonymous wrote:Apparently, before the child drowned, there were lots of comments on her posts telling her to fence her pool and she DELETED them. So the idea that she can just delete “bad” content like the 911 call or body cam footage is par for the course.
She also has videos showing that her young child knew how to open the door leading to the pool, by himself.
I have nothing against this influencer and I am sad for her. But in general, the public’s inappropriate and unhealthy interest in this child’s death is a direct result of the “content” she put out there. Influencers are harmful to society IMHO.
And most of all, influencers are harmful to themselves. She will no doubt film some long series talking about what happened, her grief, etc. And it will be monetized and those videos will make a bunch of money. Will she set up a foundation in honor of her child? Will she become a crusader of water safety? Or will she simply buy a bigger house and a nicer car? My money is on the latter.
Anonymous wrote: So many of these influencers do incredibly dangerous things and show it off which risks having others emulate them. I have seen things like riding bikes as a family and nobody has helmets including the baby in a bike with mom, allowing toddlers way too close to a pool and the only person who seems to be around is mommy who is filming something else and just happens to catch this, allowing a baby to poke a large dog in the face and be rough and more. Anytime the adoring fans bring up concerns I see defensiveness or blocking.
So, if this was negligence they are covering up, then I actually think they do harm blocking it UNLESS one child pushed the other into the water or accidentally did something. It is never the fault of a child who should be closely supervised, but I absolutely would want that child protected.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.
I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”
Here is a novel idea. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.
I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”
Does the public really need to see video footage of the child drowning??? No, they don't.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.
I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”